One oil change per year for a standard ICE car? I know the car makers have been pushing up oil change intervals to almost absurd levels (my new Subaru claims every 6K miles, on a direct-injected turbocharged engine), but even at that level its at least 2 changes per calendar year based on my long-term average mileage. My guess is for maximum engine life, you might want to push that down to 3-4K which would mean maybe 4 changes per year.
At the OPs level of use, I'd actually be worried about the gasoline going bad.
My guess is they could keep the fee tier as-is, but add a cheap paid tier just above it, and then improve features in the tier above with a slight price increase.
Say what you will, but I've been very happy with Dropbox as a paying customer. It's worked extremely reliably for me.
This is exactly right. Tuition increases and loan increases are totally a feedback mechanism. As soon as tuition goes up, loan amounts go up to match. As soon as more money is available, schools increase tuition.
The slop gets used as exactly as you describe -- what were once totally acceptable "dorm rooms" now need to be 2 bedroom condos. It would not surprise me at all if there were "dorms" on college campuses touting their in-room hot tubs.
What's stupid is that they come with new and arguably more powerful shortcut systems, but who the fuck knows what they are without obvious documentation/hints?
Worse is when they take away the originals for work-alikes (even better ones) but still don't make the new ones known.
They could even make an appy app that serves both as documentation and a way to change/add these keyboard commands back to what they used to be.
None of this satisfies UI designers, though. Most UI alterations never achieve whatever utopia their designers want and they know if they don't engage in authoritarianism to promote them (cut off the old ones), they definitely won't go anywhere. They're just fascists hiding behind human factors research.
The think the Russians can point to a lot of counterfactual experience where this didn't work so well. They managed to take down Beria in spite of all his power and influence, Khruschev lived as a virtual prisoner after being deposed.
The best retirement plan is probably negotiating some kind of political asylum in a third country. Build a giant condo project in Brazil under some kind of corporate front, and then move into the top 5 floors as some kind of high-rise secure compound. Cut a deal with the host country to stay put and out of politics completely.
You're still a virtual prisoner, but at least in a cell of your own construction.
Are there a lot of carriers who can terminate calls on the PSTN accepting random inbound SIP traffic? I feel like there is an account verification step involved here and that open SIP relays make as much sense as open SMTP relays, and that ultimately there is some level of gatekeeping to the PSTN by real carriers where it's gonna cost you to reliably terminate calls at arbitrary numbers. Thus somebody's got the ability to demand ANI get passed or the call gets rejected.
Fuck small time, fly by night SIP providers who can't or won't validate incoming traffic and will pass anything. They can get their house in order or go out of business.
If only ATT, Sprint, Verizon, CenturyLink and a couple of others decided to demand that incoming ANI matched outgoing routing paths it would still make a huge difference. If you can't terminate on those carriers, you might as well close your doors.
Basically ingress filtering. If you are accepting an inbound call from a subscriber, any calling party ANI you pass should match DIDs for which you are the owner.
They know what numbers belong to what carriers so that they can terminate calls to them correctly. I mean, we have number portability and that doesn't work without a database that says which carrier each number belongs to.
If you do this you can go a long way towards killing off robocalling and other scam calls with forged numbers.
I'm sure the more legitimate call center business will get upset, many of them forge ANI for legitimate reasons but this can be pretty easily handled either administratively (by some form or signature from the number's owner) or on the back end with communication between the owner and their provider (so that the owner physically routes outbound calls).
Ordinary business phone systems shouldn't be affected, they're already associated with the DIDs they send out as ANI as well as any base numbers assigned to their phone circuits.
i don't think anybody shops for corrective eyeglasses based solely on brand (sunglasses, maybe). You buy them for how they look on your face, since it becomes part of your face all the time.
I think Warby Parker has been a great example of this. They've milked every vintage look/trend created elsewhere for their glasses and they're dirt cheap. They've succeeded because they've mastered both of these things.
I don't have any sympathy for the eyeglasses industry, but it's pretty easy to overlook that the gap between a product's production price and the price you pay includes a ton of expenses for which the sale of the product is meant to cover, and not just executive compensation. You can't run a retail operation like Lenscrafters, especially considering it includes a bunch of heavily regulated "medical" stuff on a 10% markup.
The mainstream media contributes, but these days its kind of a social media amplifier. I'm continually amazed at how much media time is devoted to talking heads promoting and debating what was said on Twitter.
That's a great fix, but it's along the lines of saying we need to rewrite the entire code base to solve the problem. It's technically correct -- I agree 100% percent that the electoral system, especially the primaries, are broken in major ways.
But getting there is extremely difficult -- those two parties have a vested interest in maintaining this system, and will resist any change that undermines it.
Where I live we have switched to ranked choice voting at the municipal level, but we're also a town controlled by Democrats, so switching didn't imperil party control of the elected offices, and only boiled down to making party insiders' choices slightly more at risk. Switching was aided by a fairly long-term trend of rising progressives who both supported the change and were wresting control.
The net result has kind of been kind of a combo platter of primary meets runoff election, with unendorsed Democrats still running in the general election because of the lack of certainty as to how ranked choice selections will fare (as it should be).
The problem is that the meddling in the elections is less about hacking voting machines and creating fake results and more about exploiting social media to distort public opinion.
As long as we have the toxic combination of mendacious for-profit social media companies, it will be trivial to disrupt public opinion. Both platforms make money from this and neither one wants to impose controls that limit user speech or cut ad revenue.
There's no defense against that "exploit" unless Facebook or Twitter is forcefully regulated in some manner. The only regulation I can think of that would have a chance would be forcing Facebook to clearly and unambiguously identify all posts associated with politics and any kind of commercial profit by Facebook as political advertising.
I also think there's some higher order synergism between Facebook and Twitter -- Twitter allows for easy widespread public outrage, while Facebook allows that outrage to be personalized for greater individual impact. I sometimes wonder if either would be less effective as a propaganda platform without the other.
Mostly I don't think there's any defense against this.
Microsoft is shitty, but they will succeed in the cloud by more or less coercing users of various on-premise products into the cloud.
Even Windows desktop/server users will wind up being forced to use a Microsoft ID to do anything with Windows, and most non-adware versions of Windows will wind up storing user profiles in OneDrive. You'll pay for it and use it whether you want to or not, and most people will wind up using it not be able to weed themselves out of it.
I don't disagree their products in the cloud are pretty stinky now, but people seem drawn to them like moths to a flame.
I don't disagree with what you've said, but when it comes down to "I'd win that lawsuit" levels of effort it shows that they're winning anyway even if they lose in specific cases.
99% of people aren't going to take on some lawsuit against a large corporation. They already budget for fighting off these lawsuits and are really good at it, and you and everyone else have already paid for the corner cases they lose because those costs are built into their existing cost model.
I think some of the time business are reasonable about these things and do recognize the legitimate facts on the ground, but too many large corporations know they only have some risk if people are willing to take them to court and even then they make it climbing-Mt. Everest-complicated knowing that they can just stave off almost all challenges.
It's not like they store your data file by file. It goes into some kind of database/filesystem organizational structure which in turn is stored on a filesystem at the OS level to provide operational redundancy/virtualization. The underlying storage system itself is stored on the storage system's LUNs which need to also be able to be replicated or mirrored elsewhere.
At some level of data storage consumption, the amount stored by a "data archivist" exceeds one of these defined storage sizes, like data entry exceeding the defined size of variable or record. They can't just truncate the data, so they probably end up having to "rebalance" where the archivist data is stored, possibly dedicating a storage device or some other unit of storage that would otherwise be shared.
It sounds to me like an engineering problem, not a gross profitability problem. They probably engineered their storage environment for any one customer blob to not exceed some size, and when it does it deducts from the efficiency of the whole system incurring dramatically higher costs.
You would think generally one guy with 10 TB is offset by dozens of people buying plans who have mere gigabytes of storage consumed if you're just thinking in terms of their cost per TB of storage.
Doesn't that get us basically back to where we were for a couple of decades? Other than a handful of muscle car models, most cars in the US struggled to do more than 120 mph on a flat straight road. Their tires and suspensions made it suicidal to do it anyway.
It's only in the last maybe 20 years that widely available cars have had the basic horsepower and handling improvements to even make much over 100 MPH somewhat realistic.
Basically I think a top performance capability of 112 MPH isn't totally unrealistic, but only if it doesn't make performance from 50 MPH to 80 MPH completely suck, and usually a maximum performance capability kills performance at much lower speeds.
From an overall safety perspective, maybe they could retain the actual performance of a car capable of 140 MPH but drastically inhibit the ability to gain speed beyond about maybe 85 MPH. So you can get from 50 to 85 MPH easily, but going over 85 MPH is electronically limited to a rate of increase of 2 MPH per minute. You can get it up to 120 MPH from 85, but it takes 20 minutes.
I actually think Sony is a cautionary tale for Apple. From about 1977 through the mid-80s or so, Sony was really the Apple of consumer audio and video products. Great design and high quality. It was peak Japanese high tech. There was even a professional studio version of their products, giving their consumer products a kind of "pro" seal of approval. Sony was even into their own "better' formats, like Betamax and later, Minidisc.
If you were a balls-out stud in 1982 you had a Trinitron TV, a Walkman, and probably at least one Sony stereo component.
But somehow they didn't transition well to digital besides Playstation. They became a commodity player, albeit expensive, and really only the TVs were at the top of the heap, and even they lost TVs in the move to flat panels.
IMHO, Apple's problem is a lack of risk taking. They *should* be doing a Manhattan Project scale product development on something outside of iPhone/iPad with all their cash. The Manhattan project cost about $25 billion today's money, and the Apollo project around $200 billion. Apple literally has the resources to duplicate *both* those investments to scale.
I don't know what $100-200 billion in R&D looks like, but I bet its pretty cool.
Instead of taking those risks, Apple coasts on its iPhone, rigidly controlling the platform to prevent third parties and users from exploiting it in ways Apple doesn't control or undermine future half-step upgrades they want people to buy. They hoard cash, buy back stock and get into all the little financial gimmicks that please audit committees and institutional investors.
Property values fall, venues and stores are sold or just left to rot.
And then the new generation of counter-culture types moves in to places the landlords will give away just to keep them from being squatted and destroyed and they setup their little hand-to-mouth businesses. And with a little luck and perhaps the right confluence of trends, a new quirky little alt-neighborhood will be born again and begin drawing in 20-somethings.
But then they too will age a bit, some will move away, but some will stick around, rehabbing a house or two. Word will get around about the great coffee, interesting food, cool bar, fun bands, and folks will take some interest. Apartment rents will tick up. The houses will get flipped and rehabbed. The long-time industrial business nobody paid attention to will close or have a fire, necessitating it be torn down. A brand new building will be built, attracting a corporate tenant on the ground floor and with "condos" on the top 3 floors. The area will start to feel slightly less quirky and counter-culturery, still drawing in people who want to drink in the bars, but some of the "old timers" will move away.
More new corporate-tenant buildings will be built, and the vibe starts to slip away, held on only by a handful of businesses, probably bars with stages. But then the music scene shifts, the bars close, and before you know it the vibe is gone. Nobody goes there anymore.
Property values fall, venues and stores are sold or just left to rot....
This cycle goes on over and over. There is no permanent trendy area. The boomers kind of made it last longer because of two historical accidents, the demographic bulge and white flight. The demographic bulge gave them numbers and the power of trend and agenda setting. White flight gave them inexpensive urban real estate that hadn't been turned into a ghetto shithole that they could turn into a bohemian wonderland. I'll even throw in punk/alternative music, too, which kind of gave these neighborhoods a cultural lingua franca -- the shit bar for drunks became cool when it began playing live music.
Now most of the bohemian areas have been fully gentrified and the follow-on generations are lacking the numbers and the obvious urban real estate for them to turn into their own version of bohemian paradise. Music and alternative culture are badly fractured, which doesn't help, because nobody wants to go to the same clubs to hear the same music.
I put 135,000 miles on a car with basically generation 1 distance sensing cruise control, with many miles of highway and metro freeway use. Still alive, zero accidents.
I don't know where all this hate for these technologies comes from, but it sure as hell isn't from actual experience drive cars equipped with them.
If I had to guess as to where the negativity comes from, I'd wager its hatred of Musk/Tesla, jealousy/hostility towards people who can afford cars with these features, and general arrogance/ignorance about how great their manual driving skills are.
*People* respond very poorly to road surface hazards, weather conditions, traffic, etc. Most self-driving modes don't have to perfect, they just have to be better on average than humans in the same situation. It's kind of a low bar to cross in many situations.
Sensor systems can have problems, but they don't get tired, they don't get distracted, they don't drink, take drugs or medications that affects their judgement and can often see in conditions that humans cannot.
There's as much goal-post moving and demands of perfection with this as there is with AI.
Do you think that a major car manufacturer would sell a system like that if it didn't work reliably? The product liability would be huge, regardless of what they put in the manual in terms of warnings.
My guess is this type of a system has technical capabilities that greatly exceed what the official manual says, mostly because if they put a system like this in most people's hands they are going to use it beyond the cautions in the manual. Sure, some will abuse it to the point of getting in collision, but it wouldn't be available at all if in ordinary use it didn't work extremely well.
You're either a poor who just can't afford something like this or some kind of angry driver who assumes everyone else is doing it wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
One oil change per year for a standard ICE car? I know the car makers have been pushing up oil change intervals to almost absurd levels (my new Subaru claims every 6K miles, on a direct-injected turbocharged engine), but even at that level its at least 2 changes per calendar year based on my long-term average mileage. My guess is for maximum engine life, you might want to push that down to 3-4K which would mean maybe 4 changes per year.
At the OPs level of use, I'd actually be worried about the gasoline going bad.
My guess is they could keep the fee tier as-is, but add a cheap paid tier just above it, and then improve features in the tier above with a slight price increase.
Say what you will, but I've been very happy with Dropbox as a paying customer. It's worked extremely reliably for me.
I don't think that empties the magazine on a Glock 19, and especially not on a MP5 or an M4 rifle.
All dogs do is give the cops target practice.
This is exactly right. Tuition increases and loan increases are totally a feedback mechanism. As soon as tuition goes up, loan amounts go up to match. As soon as more money is available, schools increase tuition.
The slop gets used as exactly as you describe -- what were once totally acceptable "dorm rooms" now need to be 2 bedroom condos. It would not surprise me at all if there were "dorms" on college campuses touting their in-room hot tubs.
What's stupid is that they come with new and arguably more powerful shortcut systems, but who the fuck knows what they are without obvious documentation/hints?
Worse is when they take away the originals for work-alikes (even better ones) but still don't make the new ones known.
They could even make an appy app that serves both as documentation and a way to change/add these keyboard commands back to what they used to be.
None of this satisfies UI designers, though. Most UI alterations never achieve whatever utopia their designers want and they know if they don't engage in authoritarianism to promote them (cut off the old ones), they definitely won't go anywhere. They're just fascists hiding behind human factors research.
The think the Russians can point to a lot of counterfactual experience where this didn't work so well. They managed to take down Beria in spite of all his power and influence, Khruschev lived as a virtual prisoner after being deposed.
The best retirement plan is probably negotiating some kind of political asylum in a third country. Build a giant condo project in Brazil under some kind of corporate front, and then move into the top 5 floors as some kind of high-rise secure compound. Cut a deal with the host country to stay put and out of politics completely.
You're still a virtual prisoner, but at least in a cell of your own construction.
Are there a lot of carriers who can terminate calls on the PSTN accepting random inbound SIP traffic? I feel like there is an account verification step involved here and that open SIP relays make as much sense as open SMTP relays, and that ultimately there is some level of gatekeeping to the PSTN by real carriers where it's gonna cost you to reliably terminate calls at arbitrary numbers. Thus somebody's got the ability to demand ANI get passed or the call gets rejected.
Fuck small time, fly by night SIP providers who can't or won't validate incoming traffic and will pass anything. They can get their house in order or go out of business.
If only ATT, Sprint, Verizon, CenturyLink and a couple of others decided to demand that incoming ANI matched outgoing routing paths it would still make a huge difference. If you can't terminate on those carriers, you might as well close your doors.
Basically ingress filtering. If you are accepting an inbound call from a subscriber, any calling party ANI you pass should match DIDs for which you are the owner.
They know what numbers belong to what carriers so that they can terminate calls to them correctly. I mean, we have number portability and that doesn't work without a database that says which carrier each number belongs to.
If you do this you can go a long way towards killing off robocalling and other scam calls with forged numbers.
I'm sure the more legitimate call center business will get upset, many of them forge ANI for legitimate reasons but this can be pretty easily handled either administratively (by some form or signature from the number's owner) or on the back end with communication between the owner and their provider (so that the owner physically routes outbound calls).
Ordinary business phone systems shouldn't be affected, they're already associated with the DIDs they send out as ANI as well as any base numbers assigned to their phone circuits.
i don't think anybody shops for corrective eyeglasses based solely on brand (sunglasses, maybe). You buy them for how they look on your face, since it becomes part of your face all the time.
I think Warby Parker has been a great example of this. They've milked every vintage look/trend created elsewhere for their glasses and they're dirt cheap. They've succeeded because they've mastered both of these things.
I don't have any sympathy for the eyeglasses industry, but it's pretty easy to overlook that the gap between a product's production price and the price you pay includes a ton of expenses for which the sale of the product is meant to cover, and not just executive compensation. You can't run a retail operation like Lenscrafters, especially considering it includes a bunch of heavily regulated "medical" stuff on a 10% markup.
The mainstream media contributes, but these days its kind of a social media amplifier. I'm continually amazed at how much media time is devoted to talking heads promoting and debating what was said on Twitter.
That's a great fix, but it's along the lines of saying we need to rewrite the entire code base to solve the problem. It's technically correct -- I agree 100% percent that the electoral system, especially the primaries, are broken in major ways.
But getting there is extremely difficult -- those two parties have a vested interest in maintaining this system, and will resist any change that undermines it.
Where I live we have switched to ranked choice voting at the municipal level, but we're also a town controlled by Democrats, so switching didn't imperil party control of the elected offices, and only boiled down to making party insiders' choices slightly more at risk. Switching was aided by a fairly long-term trend of rising progressives who both supported the change and were wresting control.
The net result has kind of been kind of a combo platter of primary meets runoff election, with unendorsed Democrats still running in the general election because of the lack of certainty as to how ranked choice selections will fare (as it should be).
The problem is that the meddling in the elections is less about hacking voting machines and creating fake results and more about exploiting social media to distort public opinion.
As long as we have the toxic combination of mendacious for-profit social media companies, it will be trivial to disrupt public opinion. Both platforms make money from this and neither one wants to impose controls that limit user speech or cut ad revenue.
There's no defense against that "exploit" unless Facebook or Twitter is forcefully regulated in some manner. The only regulation I can think of that would have a chance would be forcing Facebook to clearly and unambiguously identify all posts associated with politics and any kind of commercial profit by Facebook as political advertising.
I also think there's some higher order synergism between Facebook and Twitter -- Twitter allows for easy widespread public outrage, while Facebook allows that outrage to be personalized for greater individual impact. I sometimes wonder if either would be less effective as a propaganda platform without the other.
Mostly I don't think there's any defense against this.
Microsoft is shitty, but they will succeed in the cloud by more or less coercing users of various on-premise products into the cloud.
Even Windows desktop/server users will wind up being forced to use a Microsoft ID to do anything with Windows, and most non-adware versions of Windows will wind up storing user profiles in OneDrive. You'll pay for it and use it whether you want to or not, and most people will wind up using it not be able to weed themselves out of it.
I don't disagree their products in the cloud are pretty stinky now, but people seem drawn to them like moths to a flame.
I don't disagree with what you've said, but when it comes down to "I'd win that lawsuit" levels of effort it shows that they're winning anyway even if they lose in specific cases.
99% of people aren't going to take on some lawsuit against a large corporation. They already budget for fighting off these lawsuits and are really good at it, and you and everyone else have already paid for the corner cases they lose because those costs are built into their existing cost model.
I think some of the time business are reasonable about these things and do recognize the legitimate facts on the ground, but too many large corporations know they only have some risk if people are willing to take them to court and even then they make it climbing-Mt. Everest-complicated knowing that they can just stave off almost all challenges.
How do you explain Subaru's EyeSight system which relies on stereo cameras? There's no LIDAR or sonar.
It's not like they store your data file by file. It goes into some kind of database/filesystem organizational structure which in turn is stored on a filesystem at the OS level to provide operational redundancy/virtualization. The underlying storage system itself is stored on the storage system's LUNs which need to also be able to be replicated or mirrored elsewhere.
At some level of data storage consumption, the amount stored by a "data archivist" exceeds one of these defined storage sizes, like data entry exceeding the defined size of variable or record. They can't just truncate the data, so they probably end up having to "rebalance" where the archivist data is stored, possibly dedicating a storage device or some other unit of storage that would otherwise be shared.
It sounds to me like an engineering problem, not a gross profitability problem. They probably engineered their storage environment for any one customer blob to not exceed some size, and when it does it deducts from the efficiency of the whole system incurring dramatically higher costs.
You would think generally one guy with 10 TB is offset by dozens of people buying plans who have mere gigabytes of storage consumed if you're just thinking in terms of their cost per TB of storage.
You're both in trouble. She told me she's sick of you both and thinks you're just going through the motions, too.
Doesn't that get us basically back to where we were for a couple of decades? Other than a handful of muscle car models, most cars in the US struggled to do more than 120 mph on a flat straight road. Their tires and suspensions made it suicidal to do it anyway.
It's only in the last maybe 20 years that widely available cars have had the basic horsepower and handling improvements to even make much over 100 MPH somewhat realistic.
Basically I think a top performance capability of 112 MPH isn't totally unrealistic, but only if it doesn't make performance from 50 MPH to 80 MPH completely suck, and usually a maximum performance capability kills performance at much lower speeds.
From an overall safety perspective, maybe they could retain the actual performance of a car capable of 140 MPH but drastically inhibit the ability to gain speed beyond about maybe 85 MPH. So you can get from 50 to 85 MPH easily, but going over 85 MPH is electronically limited to a rate of increase of 2 MPH per minute. You can get it up to 120 MPH from 85, but it takes 20 minutes.
I actually think Sony is a cautionary tale for Apple. From about 1977 through the mid-80s or so, Sony was really the Apple of consumer audio and video products. Great design and high quality. It was peak Japanese high tech. There was even a professional studio version of their products, giving their consumer products a kind of "pro" seal of approval. Sony was even into their own "better' formats, like Betamax and later, Minidisc.
If you were a balls-out stud in 1982 you had a Trinitron TV, a Walkman, and probably at least one Sony stereo component.
But somehow they didn't transition well to digital besides Playstation. They became a commodity player, albeit expensive, and really only the TVs were at the top of the heap, and even they lost TVs in the move to flat panels.
IMHO, Apple's problem is a lack of risk taking. They *should* be doing a Manhattan Project scale product development on something outside of iPhone/iPad with all their cash. The Manhattan project cost about $25 billion today's money, and the Apollo project around $200 billion. Apple literally has the resources to duplicate *both* those investments to scale.
I don't know what $100-200 billion in R&D looks like, but I bet its pretty cool.
Instead of taking those risks, Apple coasts on its iPhone, rigidly controlling the platform to prevent third parties and users from exploiting it in ways Apple doesn't control or undermine future half-step upgrades they want people to buy. They hoard cash, buy back stock and get into all the little financial gimmicks that please audit committees and institutional investors.
Property values fall, venues and stores are sold or just left to rot.
And then the new generation of counter-culture types moves in to places the landlords will give away just to keep them from being squatted and destroyed and they setup their little hand-to-mouth businesses. And with a little luck and perhaps the right confluence of trends, a new quirky little alt-neighborhood will be born again and begin drawing in 20-somethings.
But then they too will age a bit, some will move away, but some will stick around, rehabbing a house or two. Word will get around about the great coffee, interesting food, cool bar, fun bands, and folks will take some interest. Apartment rents will tick up. The houses will get flipped and rehabbed. The long-time industrial business nobody paid attention to will close or have a fire, necessitating it be torn down. A brand new building will be built, attracting a corporate tenant on the ground floor and with "condos" on the top 3 floors. The area will start to feel slightly less quirky and counter-culturery, still drawing in people who want to drink in the bars, but some of the "old timers" will move away.
More new corporate-tenant buildings will be built, and the vibe starts to slip away, held on only by a handful of businesses, probably bars with stages. But then the music scene shifts, the bars close, and before you know it the vibe is gone. Nobody goes there anymore.
Property values fall, venues and stores are sold or just left to rot....
This cycle goes on over and over. There is no permanent trendy area. The boomers kind of made it last longer because of two historical accidents, the demographic bulge and white flight. The demographic bulge gave them numbers and the power of trend and agenda setting. White flight gave them inexpensive urban real estate that hadn't been turned into a ghetto shithole that they could turn into a bohemian wonderland. I'll even throw in punk/alternative music, too, which kind of gave these neighborhoods a cultural lingua franca -- the shit bar for drunks became cool when it began playing live music.
Now most of the bohemian areas have been fully gentrified and the follow-on generations are lacking the numbers and the obvious urban real estate for them to turn into their own version of bohemian paradise. Music and alternative culture are badly fractured, which doesn't help, because nobody wants to go to the same clubs to hear the same music.
I put 135,000 miles on a car with basically generation 1 distance sensing cruise control, with many miles of highway and metro freeway use. Still alive, zero accidents.
I don't know where all this hate for these technologies comes from, but it sure as hell isn't from actual experience drive cars equipped with them.
If I had to guess as to where the negativity comes from, I'd wager its hatred of Musk/Tesla, jealousy/hostility towards people who can afford cars with these features, and general arrogance/ignorance about how great their manual driving skills are.
*People* respond very poorly to road surface hazards, weather conditions, traffic, etc. Most self-driving modes don't have to perfect, they just have to be better on average than humans in the same situation. It's kind of a low bar to cross in many situations.
Sensor systems can have problems, but they don't get tired, they don't get distracted, they don't drink, take drugs or medications that affects their judgement and can often see in conditions that humans cannot.
There's as much goal-post moving and demands of perfection with this as there is with AI.
Do you think that a major car manufacturer would sell a system like that if it didn't work reliably? The product liability would be huge, regardless of what they put in the manual in terms of warnings.
My guess is this type of a system has technical capabilities that greatly exceed what the official manual says, mostly because if they put a system like this in most people's hands they are going to use it beyond the cautions in the manual. Sure, some will abuse it to the point of getting in collision, but it wouldn't be available at all if in ordinary use it didn't work extremely well.
You're either a poor who just can't afford something like this or some kind of angry driver who assumes everyone else is doing it wrong.